Christian school.

[Jonathan]

Which is exactly the same thing as "it's OK to kill women and children if you think God wants you to".

No it's not. It's the difference between doing the right thing and thinking you're doing the right when you actually aren't. Given that we are now under Grace rather than Law, I don't think God would ever call us to do that, therefore if you think he is, you'd better have a very good reason.

Speak for yourself, sophistic asshole. Your explanations don't work for shit; God is supposedly infinite and inscrutable, hence you cannot know whether he will simply change his mind again.

He doesn't change his mind. Where did you get that idea? He is IAM i.e. he doesn't change.

I like the way you

Ah, so many ways this could end, I think I'll go make a wish...

use these long rebuttals to off-hand comment sin order to draw attention to them and away from your own immoral arguments.

... aww, it didn't come true. Oh well, I like you anyway Mike. In fact, I don't just like you, I love you baby ;^)

Actually I do this to keep myself entertained because it's not almost 7.30 am and I haven't had any sleep and I wanted to keep something light hearted in the conversation, rather than an endless tirade of invectives and accusations. And I occasionally get to make a point in them

And how is that different? All you've done is replace "if God wants you to" with "if God called you to".

One says 'believe that God wants you to' and the other says 'if God actually calls you to'. Sorry, should have made that clearer earlier. Thought it was a point you were driving at at one point.

I've explained why it's highly unlikely that God would want you to do that.

You're still ignoring the whole point, which is that you believe killing is OK if God wants you to, and this is the exact mentality which led to so much suffering in the past.

Not the same mentality. My mentality is that we live under Grace, are called to show grace and God will not be judging people until they die, so no big wars of judgement and smiting and wrath. The Crusaders acted as if we were under Law and the Spanish Inquisition... well, no idea how they even attempted to justify that one.

BTW, do you say 'wroth' or 'rath'? I can always tell I"m back home because people here say 'rath'. Most of them say 'wroth' in England. It's quite interesting. But I digress once again. Maybe I should get some sleep.

Yes, it was, wasn't it? The importance of that fact seems lost on you.

How so? I take from it now that it would be wrong now, as we are under Grace. The Crusades happened while under Grace, so it was wrong then.

[Jonathan]

It also helps that he doesn't force you to answer the tough questions, eh?

Better watch out, I think Mike's jealous of our relationship. Lock the doors and make sure the kids are somewhere safe. You never know what he might do in a fit of jealous rage. Kynes was the same until we had that big hug. I think it would help me and Mike too. So Mike, how about it? Big hug?

Since you ignored it the first time around, I will ask it again: if you sincerely believed that God changed his mind about this "grace" thing and ordered you to kill a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT?

I'll answer this in the other post.

[Darth Wong]

No it's not. It's the difference between doing the right thing and thinking you're doing the right when you actually aren't. Given that we are now under Grace rather than Law, I don't think God would ever call us to do that, therefore if you think he is, you'd better have a very good reason.

You're still evading the question. If God changed his mind about this "Grace" thing and ordered you to kill a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT?

Speak for yourself, sophistic asshole. Your explanations don't work for shit; God is supposedly infinite and inscrutable, hence you cannot know whether he will simply change his mind again.

He doesn't change his mind. Where did you get that idea? He is IAM i.e. he doesn't change.

First you say he would never ever repeat the things he did in the OT, then you argue that he never changes. Typical fundie

Actually I do this to keep myself entertained because it's not almost 7.30 am and I haven't had any sleep and I wanted to keep something light hearted in the conversation, rather than an endless tirade of invectives and accusations. And I occasionally get to make a point in them

Your evasions, needling ad-hominems and other tactics indicate that this is not just for fun. You take this quite seriously and try to pretend you don't.

Yes, it was, wasn't it? The importance of that fact seems lost on you.

How so? I take from it now that it would be wrong now, as we are under Grace. The Crusades happened while under Grace, so it was wrong then.

That is how you interpret it now. The Bible also says that Jesus will not take one word away from the Old Law, and the Old Law specifically orders the execution of various classes of people: gays, witches, sorcerers, etc. These are general orders. The fact that Jesus then contradicted himself by keeping a crowd from following one of those laws is amusing, but does not change the fact that it's trivially easy to interpret the Bible in such a manner as to approve such things.

[Darth Wong]

It also helps that he doesn't force you to answer the tough questions, eh?

Better watch out, I think Mike's jealous of our relationship. Lock the doors and make sure the kids are somewhere safe. You never know what he might do in a fit of jealous rage. Kynes was the same until we had that big hug. I think it would help me and Mike too. So Mike, how about it? Big hug?

I don't hug people who approve of murder. And if you figure you can make obvious needling remarks about me to others without me using them as an opportunity to ask you one of those tough questions you'd rather not face, you're wrong.

Since you ignored it the first time around, I will ask it again: if you sincerely believed that God changed his mind about this "grace" thing and ordered you to kill a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT?

I'll answer this in the other post.

I'm sure you will, in your usual evasive way. Let me guess: he would never ask for that?

[Jonathan]

Actually, he suffered physical pain, breathing impairment, and then finally death. All of that other stuff exists only in your head.

Are you saying that physical pain is the only kind that matters?

Speak for yourself, asshole. You tried to refute claims of God's evil based on his evil acts by referencing positive passages in the Bible. I pointed out that this is bullshit, and you responded by simply ignoring that point and shifting the subject to the evil of "sinners" rather than the evil of God.

False dilemma. By discussing the evil of sinners, I was justifying God's actions and showing them to not be evil. The two things are related.

What would it take to show that God is evil? Oh yes, it's IMPOSSIBLE to do that in your eyes because you have simply defined God not to be evil. I guess the concept of circular logic figures heavily in your reasoning process.

Not particularly.

1) I trust the account of the Gospels. Because of this, I believe Jesus died and rose again. Because of this, I believe he is God and trustworthy. Because of this, I believe him when he says to love, trust, obey, etc. God the Father. Because of this, I believe that God is not evil.

2) If God exists, he defines good and evil. He's the one who'll be judging everyone so, quite frankly, his morality. is the only one that matters, if he exists, as I believe he does.

That is not victimhood. In order to victimize someone, you must actually harm him in some way, not just offend him or reject his advances. If we use your fucked-up definition of victimhoods, a spurned stalker is a victim.

When you said 'victim' I assumed you meant the one who the sin is committed against, which is the relevant thing when it comes to forgiveness, so my point was perfectly valid.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, he suffered physical pain, breathing impairment, and then finally death. All of that other stuff exists only in your head.

Are you saying that physical pain is the only kind that matters?

I'm saying it's the only kind he was known to have. There is no reason to believe he felt the agony of billions suffering for eternity, hence no reason for your equivalence.

False dilemma. By discussing the evil of sinners, I was justifying God's actions and showing them to not be evil. The two things are related.

So it's not evil to kill someone if he was a "sinner", even if he never committed a "sin" as serious as murder himself? It's not evil to kill a baby, since we are all deserving of death according to you? Answer the damned point instead of dancing around it.

Not particularly.

1) I trust the account of the Gospels. Because of this, I believe Jesus died and rose again. Because of this, I believe he is God and trustworthy. Because of this, I believe him when he says to love, trust, obey, etc. God the Father. Because of this, I believe that God is not evil.

2) If God exists, he defines good and evil. He's the one who'll be judging everyone so, quite frankly, his morality. is the only one that matters, if he exists, as I believe he does.

In other words, precisely as I said, you simply define God to be good, so it's impossible to prove to you that God is not good. No amount of evidence or reasoning will suffice, given your circular logic. I love the way you can take a point, restate it in different language, and then act as though you've somehow refuted it.

When you said 'victim' I assumed you meant the one who the sin is committed against, which is the relevant thing when it comes to forgiveness, so my point was perfectly valid.

No it isn't. The word "victim" requires that you harmed someone. How can you "sin" against someone without hurting him in any way?

PS. I'm still waiting for you to answer that question, which I will pose for the FOURTH time: If you sincerely believed that God wanted you to murder a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT?

[Jonathan]

You're still evading the question. If God changed his mind about this "Grace" thing and ordered you to kill a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT?

God doesn't change his mind, so the question is irrelevant. It's like asking what I would do if God told me to worship Satan. He wouldn't tell me that, so the question is pointless.

First you say he would never ever repeat the things he did in the OT, then you argue that he never changes.

He doesn't change. This is still all part of his plan. He's still perfectly sovereign, perfectly loving, perfectly just, etc. We are now in a different situation because we've had the crucifixion and resurrection, so his actions are now different. Different response to a different situation. Doesn't mean he's changed.

Typical fundie

What was it you were saying earlier about groups and individuals?

Your evasions, needling ad-hominems and other tactics indicate that this is not just for fun. You take this quite seriously and try to pretend you don't.

When did I claim I don't take it seriously. On the contrary, the fact that I am a Christian is the most important thing in my life. That doesn't mean I go round sombre-faced all the time. On the contrary, it gives me hope and joy, so there is nothing wrong with me having a bit of harmless fun. Good grief, the mood you're in you could do with a bit of cheering up. Maybe I could sing you a song? I'll even stand at the front of the room and do the actions.

That is how you interpret it now. The Bible also says that Jesus will not take one word away from the Old Law, and the Old Law specifically orders the execution of various classes of people: gays, witches, sorcerers, etc. These are general orders. The fact that Jesus then contradicted himself by keeping a crowd from following one of those laws is amusing, but does not change the fact that it's trivially easy to interpret the Bible in such a manner as to approve such things.

There is a difference between the Law and the law. The Law said that certain things were right or wrong. The law typically went into minutae, instructions on how to build your own tabernacle, details on how the Jews were to set themselves apart from other people etc. The consequences of breaking the Law were immediate back then - death. The Law is still the same today, but judgement is postponed to give people a chance to repent. Right and wrong are still the same, judgement just happens at a different time.

And yes, it is trivially easy to misinterpret the Bible because most people don't bother to take passages in context or go in wanting to see that it says something, rather than asking what a passage really says. Self-delusion is all too easy, which I"m sure you'll snigger about.

[Jonathan]

How can an "all powerful" being be a victim of anything?

He can be sinned against because he gave us free will.

For that matter, why the fuck did he "give" us the power of choice if he hates the inevitable result?

He hates it when we sin, loves it when we don't and loves us throughout it all. He created us to glorify him by having a relationship with him. That requires free will.

Oh, and your acertation that several hours of suffering "billions of peoples' guilt" is in any way comparable to even a single person's suffering for all eternity is goddamn BRILLIANT.

Thank you :^)

Not a single person in the whole of human history has ever done ANYTHING to warrant suffering for eternity without hope of parole.

We have hope. You don't have to suffer. All you have to do is acknowledge that you're a sinner and sincerely ask God for forgiveness. If you don't, then you're asking to be cut off from God for ever and that's exactly what you get. People don't just deserve for it, they actively seak it out.

[Jonathan]

I don't hug people who approve of murder. And if you figure you can make obvious needling remarks about me to others without me using them as an opportunity to ask you one of those tough questions you'd rather not face, you're wrong.

I tihnk we'd have fewer murderers if everyone got a big hug every once in a while. And as I said, I don't approve of murder, I just disagree that it was murder.

I'm sure you will, in your usual evasive way. Let me guess: he would never ask for that?

That's right, he wouldn't. Grace won't suddenly be taken away. To ask me what I would do if it was would be asking me to consider my actions from the point of view of a completely differnent belief system that I do not hold to and would therefore be irrelevant to the discussion.

[Darth Wong]

You're still evading the question. If God changed his mind about this "Grace" thing and ordered you to kill a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT?

God doesn't change his mind, so the question is irrelevant. It's like asking what I would do if God told me to worship Satan. He wouldn't tell me that, so the question is pointless.

Stop speaking for God. You can bullshit all you like, but this "grace/no grace" transition means that he DID change his mind in the past. And as a moral question, you are still evading it on a fundamental level. Answer the damned question: if you sincerely believed God wanted you to murder a baby, would you do it?

Typical fundie

What was it you were saying earlier about groups and individuals?

I was saying that individuals need to be evaluated as individuals. You have confirmed yourself to be an example of a rabid fundie moron.

When did I claim I don't take it seriously. On the contrary, the fact that I am a Christian is the most important thing in my life. That doesn't mean I go round sombre-faced all the time. On the contrary, it gives me hope and joy, so there is nothing wrong with me having a bit of harmless fun. Good grief, the mood you're in you could do with a bit of cheering up. Maybe I could sing you a song? I'll even stand at the front of the room and do the actions.

Maybe you could prove to me that you have a shred of morality in you. That would make me feel better than any bullshit games you might play.

There is a difference between the Law and the law. The Law said that certain things were right or wrong. The law typically went into minutae, instructions on how to build your own tabernacle, details on how the Jews were to set themselves apart from other people etc. The consequences of breaking the Law were immediate back then - death. The Law is still the same today, but judgement is postponed to give people a chance to repent. Right and wrong are still the same, judgement just happens at a different time.

So it's still right to punish kids mercilessly for swearing at their parents, as long as God waits until the afterlife to unleash his hatred and vindictive cruelty?

And yes, it is trivially easy to misinterpret the Bible because most people don't bother to take passages in context or go in wanting to see that it says something, rather than asking what a passage really says. Self-delusion is all too easy, which I"m sure you'll snigger about.

"Taking out of context" is the oldest excuse in the book. Unless you can produce a context in which mass-murder of infants is OK, it doesn't wash.

Once again, I will ask the question: if you sincerely believed that God wanted you to kill a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT? This question is about YOUR morality, and you can't evade it by simply arguing that it would never happen. The whole point is to see what kind of moral character you have.

[Darth Wong]

I tihnk we'd have fewer murderers if everyone got a big hug every once in a while. And as I said, I don't approve of murder, I just disagree that it was murder.

Of course, it was righteous killing of babies according to you. As far as I'm concerned, there's no such thing.

That's right, he wouldn't. Grace won't suddenly be taken away. To ask me what I would do if it was would be asking me to consider my actions from the point of view of a completely differnent belief system that I do not hold to and would therefore be irrelevant to the discussion.

Evade, evade, evade. I love it when people respond to hypothetical moral questions by simply trying to evade them. It shows that they know their answer would be reprehensible so they don't want to admit it.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Mike, if this keeps up I suggest that you add this as an addendum to his section on the hate mail page- its most entertaining.

Anyway, time to answer some points.

Are you saying that physical pain is the only kind that matters?

No, hes saying that your exaggeration is percisely that... an exaggeration.

False dilemma. By discussing the evil of sinners, I was justifying God's actions and showing them to not be evil. The two things are related.

Only if you accept the premise that morality, meaning good and evil, is derived from god's will, and not from the nature of man. Of course if you accept that premise your commiting the "argument from authority" logical fallecy; but I'm sure you don't care about that.

Not particularly.

1) I trust the account of the Gospels. Because of this, I believe Jesus died and rose again. Because of this, I believe he is God and trustworthy. Because of this, I believe him when he says to love, trust, obey, etc. God the Father. Because of this, I believe that God is not evil.

2) If God exists, he defines good and evil. He's the one who'll be judging everyone so, quite frankly, his morality. is the only one that matters, if he exists, as I believe he does.

Wow, your such a nit-wit that your "counter-point" only further demonstrates the circular logic you emply.


Faith----->Gospels---->Jesus/Morality/God----->Faith

[Jonathan]

I'm saying it's the only kind he was known to have. There is no reason to believe he felt the agony of billions suffering for eternity, hence no reason for your equivalence.

He quotes Psalm 22 and clearly indicates that he has, for the moment, been cut off from the Father. The land was covered in darkness, a sign of God's displeasure. He died to take our sins, necessitating that he be cut off from the Father.

So it's not evil to kill someone if he was a "sinner", even if he never committed a "sin" as serious as murder himself? It's not evil to kill a baby, since we are all deserving of death according to you?

It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it ay God's command. However, that would be an act of judgement which is being left until the Second Coming.

Answer the damned point instead of dancing around it.

Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean they're not being provided.

In other words, precisely as I said, you simply define God to be good, so it's impossible to prove to you that God is not good. No amount of evidence or reasoning will suffice, given your circular logic. I love the way you can take a point, restate it in different language, and then act as though you've somehow refuted it.

Well, you ignored my first reason for belief there and the second isn't circular. It's saying that if God exists, then he would know what morality is and what he says is moral is the only things that matters because in the end, he's the one doing the judging. How do you justify saying that your moral system is superior to God's? Or will that lead to a circular argument?

No it isn't. The word "victim" requires that you harmed someone. How can you "sin" against someone without hurting him in any way?

You can't, therefore every sin has a victim... haven't you just supported what I said?

PS. I'm still waiting for you to answer that question, which I will pose for the FOURTH time: If you sincerely believed that God wanted you to murder a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT?

No, because murder is wrong and expressly forbidden in the Ten Commandments. Number 6 I believe. Do you mean would I kill a baby? Once again, I don't believe that God would ask that of me as we are now are Grace. If I had been an Israelite, under the Law, before Jesus' coming and I was convinced God was asking me to do something, then I hope I would have done it.

[Darth Wong]

Since Jonathan is too much of an evasive little shit to answer the question, I'll try to make it harder for him to evade:

If you were transported back to 500 BC, would you kill a baby if God told you to?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

He can be sinned against because he gave us free will.

And then he defines Sinning as defying his will, for which he will punish you for eternity.

He hates it when we sin, loves it when we don't and loves us throughout it all. He created us to glorify him by having a relationship with him. That requires free will.

All of which makes a mockery of Justice since to defy him is to burn in hell for eternity. Sin is defined as both morraly wrong and defying the will of God. One cannot say "I have Sinned but I have done nothing wrong" but one can say "I have defied the Will of God but I have done nothing Wrong". Knowing this one can conclude that the type of relationship God wants is one in which he is the master and we are the slaves.

We have hope. You don't have to suffer. All you have to do is acknowledge that you're a sinner and sincerely ask God for forgiveness. If you don't, then you're asking to be cut off from God for ever and that's exactly what you get. People don't just deserve for it, they actively seak it out.

Keep in mind that the source of the suuffering is God himself. God has no right to claim the moral high ground when it is he who is settitng the arbitrary standards by which he tortures people for all eternity. [/quote][/code]

[Darth Wong]

He quotes Psalm 22 and clearly indicates that he has, for the moment, been cut off from the Father. The land was covered in darkness, a sign of God's displeasure. He died to take our sins, necessitating that he be cut off from the Father.

None of which proves that his death is somehow equivalent to all the world's crimes.

So it's not evil to kill someone if he was a "sinner", even if he never committed a "sin" as serious as murder himself? It's not evil to kill a baby, since we are all deserving of death according to you?

It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it ay God's command.

Everyone pay attention: Jonathan Boyd just admitted that in his opinion, it's not evil for someone to kill a baby at God's command.

However, that would be an act of judgement which is being left until the Second Coming.

So when the Second Coming arrives, it will be OK to kill babies at God's command?

Answer the damned point instead of dancing around it.

Just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean they're not being provided.

You don't answer a question by evading it.

Well, you ignored my first reason for belief there and the second isn't circular. It's saying that if God exists, then he would know what morality is and what he says is moral is the only things that matters because in the end, he's the one doing the judging. How do you justify saying that your moral system is superior to God's? Or will that lead to a circular argument?

My moral system starts from the universal premise that life/pleasure are good, while death/suffering are bad. That premise is much more reasonable than the premise that the Bible is true. Therefore, the moral system which is generated from that premise is superior to your notion of God's morality, which violates that premise in countless ways.

No it isn't. The word "victim" requires that you harmed someone. How can you "sin" against someone without hurting him in any way?

You can't, therefore every sin has a victim... haven't you just supported what I said?

No, you idiot. What I've said is that when you define a sin that has no discernible victim, then it is obviously not a sin at all. Therefore, Biblical "sins" such as not worshipping God are not wrong.

PS. I'm still waiting for you to answer that question, which I will pose for the FOURTH time: If you sincerely believed that God wanted you to murder a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT?

No, because murder is wrong and expressly forbidden in the Ten Commandments. Number 6 I believe.

Yet you said earlier that it's OK for someone to kill at God's command. Are you saying you would disobey God's command?

Do you mean would I kill a baby? Once again, I don't believe that God would ask that of me as we are now are Grace. If I had been an Israelite, under the Law, before Jesus' coming and I was convinced God was asking me to do something, then I hope I would have done it.

So you admit that you would gleefully kill a baby at God's command. Thank you. You're an asshole.

[Jonathan]

You're still evading the question. If God changed his mind about this "Grace" thing and ordered you to kill a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT?

God doesn't change his mind, so the question is irrelevant. It's like asking what I would do if God told me to worship Satan. He wouldn't tell me that, so the question is pointless.

Stop speaking for God.

That would make it kinda hard to answer questions about him.

You can bullshit all you like, but this "grace/no grace" transition means that he DID change his mind in the past.

No, it means that Jesus came at a point in history, which then divided time up into 'under Law' and 'under Grace'. Not God changing his mind, but God's plan being fulfilled and the circumstances then changing.

And as a moral question, you are still evading it on a fundamental level. Answer the damned question: if you sincerely believed God wanted you to murder a baby, would you do it?

Answered elsewhere.

I was saying that individuals need to be evaluated as individuals. You have confirmed yourself to be an example of a rabid fundie moron.

In other words, you've labelled me to save yourself the effort of honest thought.

Maybe you could prove to me that you have a shred of morality in you. That would make me feel better than any bullshit games you might play.

I do have a shred of morality. I happen to view morality the same way as God; why should I be concerned about how I appear under your moral code? What makes it any better? What gives it any validity at all?

So it's still right to punish kids mercilessly for swearing at their parents, as long as God waits until the afterlife to unleash his hatred and vindictive cruelty?

That doesn't happen. You might get further in debates if you were more polite and used less emotive, pejorative language. I mean seriously Mike, that's a loaded question with my relevance to how I see the situation, so what are you expecting to happen? You'd be better to ask 'Do you think it's right that someone who swears at their parents as a child to spend an eternity in Hell after they die?' That way, it isn't loaded with your opinions on the situation, allowing the opponent (i.e. me) to answer, and it's just plain good manners. So go ahead, try asking me the question again.

"Taking out of context" is the oldest excuse in the book.

That would be because it happens. Frequently.

Unless you can produce a context in which mass-murder of infants is OK, it doesn't wash.

Once again Mike, the whole pejorative, emotive thing. I believe murder is wrong, so obviously I'm going to say there is no context in which it is right. Would you care to rephrase the question?

Once again, I will ask the question: if you sincerely believed that God wanted you to kill a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT? This question is about YOUR morality, and you can't evade it by simply arguing that it would never happen.

Yes I can because I don't believe that he would ever ask it, so it is irrelevant. It would be like asking me what I would do if I was a Muslim or a Hindu. you're asking what I would do under a different belief system, so the question is irrelevant. I have however answered it, after a fashion, elsewhere.

The whole point is to see what kind of moral character you have.

Under your moral code. What makes it so good? Why is it any better than what God says?

[Jonathan]

Since Jonathan is too much of an evasive little shit to answer the question, I'll try to make it harder for him to evade:

If you were transported back to 500 BC, would you kill a baby if God told you to?

I've already answered that. And you know what Mike, rather than evade the question, I came up with it myself because you kept asking ones that I couldn't possibly answer. I went out and did your work for you. Kind of the opposite of evasion, wouldn't you agree?

[Jonathan]

And then he defines Sinning as defying his will, for which he will punish you for eternity.

If you reject God and ask to live you life totally apart from him, then he allows you to do that and gives you complete fulfilment of it after you die. Eternity apart from God. Now, if God is good and loving, that means you're cut off from all that is good and loving, but he warned you and even died for you so you wouldn't have to go though with it, so it's our choice at the end of the way. You make a choice and you have to live (and die) with it. That's not his fault.

He hates it when we sin, loves it when we don't and loves us throughout it all. He created us to glorify him by having a relationship with him. That requires free will.

All of which makes a mockery of Justice since to defy him is to burn in hell for eternity. [/quote]

How is that a mockery of justice.

Sin is defined as both morraly wrong and defying the will of God. One cannot say "I have Sinned but I have done nothing wrong" but one can say "I have defied the Will of God but I have done nothing Wrong". Knowing this one can conclude that the type of relationship God wants is one in which he is the master and we are the slaves. [/quote]

You can't say you've done nothing wrong, yet defied God's will. Defying his will is itself wrong. The kind of relationship God created us for is one in which he loves us, we receive that love, we love him and he receives glory. Ultimately, it will be the most fulfilling way to spend eternity because it's what we were created for. If you don't want involved, you can defy your purpose, but that's just shooting yourself in the foot because it cuts you off form everything you were designed for.

Keep in mind that the source of the suuffering is God himself. God has no right to claim the moral high ground when it is he who is settitng the arbitrary standards by which he tortures people for all eternity.

The suffering is not from God and he doesn't torture people. If people want to cut themselves off form God, he allows them to. It's just that it isn't the picnic they think it will be.

[Darth Wong]

I've already answered that. And you know what Mike, rather than evade the question, I came up with it myself because you kept asking ones that I couldn't possibly answer. I went out and did your work for you. Kind of the opposite of evasion, wouldn't you agree?

After evading the question a half-dozen times, you finally came clean and answered it following increasingly strident confrontations. Congratulations on being so forthright

Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you would gleefully murder babies if you thought God wanted you to. Not only that, but you defend this as a merely "different" moral standard, no worse than mine.

Frankly, this ends the debate. We are now in agreement that your horrifying scheme of morality condones baby-killing if you think God commands it. And the best you can do in order to deflect criticism is whine that I have chosen "perjorative" terms to describe this, as if baby-killing does not warrant harsh terms

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

And as a moral question, you are still evading it on a fundamental level. Answer the damned question: if you sincerely believed God wanted you to murder a baby, would you do it?

Answered elsewhere.

So, for the record, was that a YES or a NO?

In other words, you've labelled me to save yourself the effort of honest thought.

If an Individual fits the characteristics of a label, then using that label is perfectly acceptable.

I do have a shred of morality. I happen to view morality the same way as God; why should I be concerned about how I appear under your moral code? What makes it any better? What gives it any validity at all?

Validity is derived from correct premises and logic. Whenever someone asks why the morality of the Bible is good the answer is always "Cause I said so." Hence your Moral code is based in authoritarianism- which depends neither upon correct premises nor logic. Hence your Morality is not Valid

Once again Mike, the whole pejorative, emotive thing. I believe murder is wrong, so obviously I'm going to say there is no context in which it is right. Would you care to rephrase the question?

You also believe that morality is derived from the Will of God. Hence your belief that murder is wrong is completely dependent upon the the Will of God. If the Will of God is your Moral compass you cannot claim that the murder is wrong if it is the Will of God; well not if you want to be logically consistent anyway.

Once again, I will ask the question: if you sincerely believed that God wanted you to kill a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT? This question is about YOUR morality, and you can't evade it by simply arguing that it would never happen.

Yes I can because I don't believe that he would ever ask it, so it is irrelevant.

What you believe God will or will not do is irrelevant, you are not omniscient so you cannot possibly know what God will or will not do in the future. Therefore you have to answer the question since it is relevant in that God COULD ask you to murder an infant.

Under your moral code. What makes it so good? Why is it any better than what God says?

See above.

[Jonathan]

None of which proves that his death is somehow equivalent to all the world's crimes.

It paid for it because he was sinless. He felt the guilt of every sin. What do you mean by equivalent?

Everyone pay attention: Jonathan Boyd just admitted that in his opinion, it's not evil for someone to kill a baby at God's command.

I said it is right to obey God. I also said that God would not ask that of someone now that we are under law. But when did context matter to you?

So when the Second Coming arrives, it will be OK to kill babies at God's command?

It's pretty clear that we're not going to be the instruments of judgement. It should be subtitled. The second Coming: This time it's personal.

You don't answer a question by evading it.

Some of your questions are equivalent to asking what happens when an unopposable force meets an immovable object.

My moral system starts from the universal premise that life/pleasure are good, while death/suffering are bad. That premise is much more reasonable than the premise that the Bible is true. Therefore, the moral system which is generated from that premise is superior to your notion of God's morality, which violates that premise in countless ways.

Why is your premise more reasonable? How can you say that it is universal? Incidentally, I would say that life/pleasure are good and that death/suffering are undesirable. All sin causes suffering and is deserving of death. The Chief end of man is to serve God by enjoying him forever.

No, you idiot.

Don't blame me when you make ambiguous statements.

What I've said is that when you define a sin that has no discernible victim, then it is obviously not a sin at all. Therefore, Biblical "sins" such as not worshipping God are not wrong.

Yes they are because God is being deprived of something he deserves.

Yet you said earlier that it's OK for someone to kill at God's command. Are you saying you would disobey God's command?

Stop changing the subject. One moment you're talking about murder, the next you're on about killing. Please choose one and stick to it. Now which is it? Besides which, I answered the question later in the post.

Do you mean would I kill a baby? Once again, I don't believe that God would ask that of me as we are now are Grace. If I had been an Israelite, under the Law, before Jesus' coming and I was convinced God was asking me to do something, then I hope I would have done it.

So you admit that you would gleefully

Where did I say gleefully?

kill a baby at God's command. Thank you. You're an asshole.

No I didn't. I said I would have back then when we are under Law, but I wouldn't now because God wouldn't ask me to as we are under Grace. The very thing was asked of Abraham in Genesis and I hope I would have responded in the same way, trusting in God.

I would also like to say that I have a dead sister. She died of cot death when she was 7 months old, I love her dearly, cry when thinking about her and don't run round thinking 'I like to kill babies' and the only reason I'm not going to give voice to the anger I feel towards you is that God loves you and calls me to do the same, so bless you Mike, I sincerely hope that someday you will come to know the love I know through God and start to understand why I do what I do and say what I say. I don't want to see you in Hell, I want to see you standing alongside me in Heaven, praising God, and have a big group hug.

[Jonathan]

After evading the question a half-dozen times, you finally came clean and answered it following increasingly strident confrontations. Congratulations on being so forthright

Yes Mike, clearly I was evading the question since I'm the one who went out and found a question I could answer that you'd be happy with, rather than waiting for you to keep repeating a question I couldn't answer.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you would gleefully

Now you're putting words into my mouth.

murder

Another lie. I never said I would murder because, as I repeatedly said, God wouldn't ask me to murder.

babies if you thought God wanted you to. Not only that, but you defend this as a merely "different" moral standard, no worse than mine.

Significantly better than yours actually and pointed out that we are under Grace, rather than Law, so I would never be in that situation.

Frankly, this ends the debate. We are now in agreement that your horrifying scheme of morality condones baby-killing if you think God commands it. And the best you can do in order to deflect criticism is whine that I have chosen "perjorative" terms to describe this, as if baby-killing does not warrant harsh terms

So you're not going to answer the question of why your moral system is supposedly better? Because that's the really issue isn't it Mike? You judge my morals by your moral system, but what is its basis? What makes it 'right' After all, you've just made it up. It doesn't come from anywhere.

[Jonathan]

So, for the record, was that a YES or a NO?

It's a 'life isn't that simple, go take it in context and deal with an answer longer than one word'.

I do have a shred of morality. I happen to view morality the same way as God; why should I be concerned about how I appear under your moral code? What makes it any better? What gives it any validity at all?

Validity is derived from correct premises and logic. Whenever someone asks why the morality of the Bible is good the answer is always "Cause I said so." Hence your Moral code is based in authoritarianism- which depends neither upon correct premises nor logic. Hence your Morality is not Valid

On what basis do you say that the premise that God is moral is wrong? And where does logic come into morality? You are stating opinions here, not solid facts. And you haven't justified your system of morality. What is its premise and what makes it right? How do you define a 'correct' premise? How are you going to apply logic to morality and why?

Once again Mike, the whole pejorative, emotive thing. I believe murder is wrong, so obviously I'm going to say there is no context in which it is right. Would you care to rephrase the question?

You also believe that morality is derived from the Will of God. Hence your belief that murder is wrong is completely dependent upon the the Will of God. If the Will of God is your Moral compass you cannot claim that the murder is wrong if it is the Will of God; well not if you want to be logically consistent anyway.

Murder is defined as unlawful killing and God says murder is wrong. I've no idea what point you just tried to make.

What you believe God will or will not do is irrelevant, you are not omniscient so you cannot possibly know what God will or will not do in the future. Therefore you have to answer the question since it is relevant in that God COULD ask you to murder an infant.

I know certain facts about God that preclude the question from being possible. To ask me to answer it would be to ask me to believe something I don't believe, therefore the answer would not be representative of my actual views.

If you believed that God was perfectly good and should be obeyed and were convinced that he had asked you to kill someone, what would you do?

Does your answer to this have any bearing on what you would actually do under your existing belief system (or lack thereof)?

[Darth Wong]

It paid for it because he was sinless. He felt the guilt of every sin. What do you mean by equivalent?

How does killing an innocent person even the scales of other sins?

I said it is right to obey God. I also said that God would not ask that of someone now that we are under law. But when did context matter to you?

Yet again, the universal "context" excuse. I asked if you thought it was OK to kill babies, and you said it was just fine if God did it, or if somebody did it at God's command. You can't escape your own words.

My moral system starts from the universal premise that life/pleasure are good, while death/suffering are bad. That premise is much more reasonable than the premise that the Bible is true.

Why is your premise more reasonable? How can you say that it is universal?

All creatures instinctively try to avoid death and suffering, dumb-ass. It is obviously universal. To compare the universality of such a simple premise with the notion that an ancient book of mythology is literally true is absurd.

Incidentally, I would say that life/pleasure are good and that death/suffering are undesirable.

Good. You just admitted that God did bad things by causing vast amounts of death and suffering.

All sin causes suffering and is deserving of death. The Chief end of man is to serve God by enjoying him forever.

I like the way you honestly believe that this nonsense is just as reasonable as the simple statement that life/pleasure are good and death/suffering are bad.

What I've said is that when you define a sin that has no discernible victim, then it is obviously not a sin at all. Therefore, Biblical "sins" such as not worshipping God are not wrong.

Yes they are because God is being deprived of something he deserves.

You have failed to establish this. Your God claims to deserve worship. However, his stated conduct has shown that if he existed anywhere but the inside of your head, he would deserve nothing but contempt.

Stop changing the subject. One moment you're talking about murder, the next you're on about killing. Please choose one and stick to it. Now which is it? Besides which, I answered the question later in the post.

Stop splitting hairs between baby-killing and murder; you're fooling no one. Killing is always murder unless you have a specific justification, such as self-defense. And there is no justification to ever kill a baby.

So you admit that you would gleefully

Where did I say gleefully?

You said you "hoped" you would be able to do it if asked. It's a rare and despicable man who hopes he would be able to kill babies for God if he was placed in the right situation.

kill a baby at God's command. Thank you. You're an asshole.

No I didn't. I said I would have back then when we are under Law, but I wouldn't now because God wouldn't ask me to as we are under Grace. The very thing was asked of Abraham in Genesis and I hope I would have responded in the same way, trusting in God.

There you go. You "hope" you would be willing to murder your own son if God says so. Gee, what a nice guy

I would also like to say that I have a dead sister. She died of cot death when she was 7 months old, I love her dearly, cry when thinking about her and don't run round thinking 'I like to kill babies'

Maybe not, but you "hope" you would be able to do it if God wanted you to. Trying to generate sympathy for your past will not excuse your despicable lack of moral fibre in the present.

and the only reason I'm not going to give voice to the anger I feel towards you is that God loves you and calls me to do the same, so bless you Mike, I sincerely hope that someday you will come to know the love I know through God and start to understand why I do what I do and say what I say.

You feel "anger" toward me? Funny, you spent quite a bit of time pretending that none of this bothers you. What have I done so far to make you angry? Insulted you? Sorry, but if being accused of immorality for condoning baby-killing is an insult, then you deserve it. On the other hand, if you genuinely think there's nothing wrong with God-sanctioned baby-killing, then why would you take offense that I keep calling you to task on it?

I don't want to see you in Hell, I want to see you standing alongside me in Heaven, praising God, and have a big group hug.

That's the difference between me and you: I would never praise a mass-murderer. Or perhaps I should humour your sick values and call him a "mass-righteous-killer-of-sinners-and-sinners-babies" instead, eh?